I disagree on low protection, and detection testing does not account for the journal rollback mechanism in Webroot. That can be adjusted through heuristics or manually applied through Control Active Process. When all of this is taken into consideration I believe it meets a suitable level of protection.
- And I've not really seen an equal to Webroot in the resource consumption category. (Maybe modified Avast, or Panda).
- I will also point out the cost when purchased in a physical store is very cheap comparative to other paid solutions.
despite all tweaks, webroot still has many limitations where malwares can bypass
for example, when we get a fileless malwares or a password/banking stealer, if webroot can't protect us in the first place, we are finished
all the important information is stolen and this can't be rolled back, although the malware's actions can be rolled back. If users get a backdoor and the hacker takes over the machine, the first thing he does is stealing all the important data and may or may not uninstall the AV, this can't be rolled back too
furthermore, according to many tests I have seen, even after 24 hours, webroot still failed to rollback or protect against the malwares. If we get a ransomware and it locks our PC (wannacy for example), especially for businessmen, they can't wait 4-24 hrs for webroot to rollback because they need the machine to work immediately
regardless of the price, $7-8, I don't find it worth it for us if we are not advanced users
in the end, I think webroot is not worth the money for everything it has
about the lightness of other AVs, we have not tried to maximize the speed of them so we can't tell much
I'm using KFA now, and this is the first time I change the setting to scan on-execution. It's extremely light (except the memory usage). It's should be the same for avast